CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 073 28.01.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Simeonov v. Bulgaria (no.30122/03)   APPLICANT’S CONTINUED PRE-TRIAL DETENTION JUSTIFIED, BUT BAN ON SEEING HIS WIFE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW     Unanimously :   No violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights       Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Tihomir Kolev Simeonov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Dobrich. In November 2002 and April 2003, following the opening of criminal investigations in respect of several persons, Mr Simeonov was charged with burglary of a private home.   He was arrested by the police on 1 October 2002 and detained pending trial, since the District Court considered that there was sufficient evidence to ground the suspicion against him and that his six previous convictions and the three sets of criminal proceedings still pending against him gave rise to fears that he might abscond or reoffend. Mr Simeonov made five applications for release, which were all refused on those grounds.   The District Court held 13 hearings in the case. Four were postponed because one of the co-accused was ill or one of the defence lawyers was absent, another was adjourned because the judge was ill and a sixth was postponed because the civil party had not been summoned. At the hearings the applicant alleged that there had been a number of procedural irregularities during the preliminary investigation, concerning in particular the taking of evidence from witnesses.   On 20 December 2004 Mr Simeonov was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for burglary. The sentence was reduced on appeal to seven years in February 2006. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed in January 2007, the Supreme Court of Cassation holding that a thorough analysis of all the evidence had been conducted on appeal and that the procedural and substantive rules had been complied with. In the course of his pre-trial detention, from October 2002 to February 2003, the applicant was held in three centres, where, according to him, the material conditions were poor (lack of a window and toilets in the cell, overcrowding, etc.). In 2007 Mr Simeonov brought an action for damages against the State, seeking compensation from the Ministry of Justice for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained during his detention. The Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not satisfied the conditions for bringing such an action. That decision was challenged by the applicant in the Supreme Administrative Court; the proceedings are still pending.   Moreover, in July 2003, during the examination of the criminal case, Mr Simeonov was prohibited from seeing his wife, who was also one of the co-accused. During his pre-trial detention, Mr Simeonov was likewise unable to see his daughter, a minor, who lived with his wife. Between 2003 and 2006 the applicant unsuccessfully sought to have the ban lifted on several occasions. It was eventually lifted on 31 March 2006, after the reporting judge of the Regional Court had found that the ban contravened the relevant legislation.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and, under Article 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), about its length. He further complained, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), that he had been prohibited from meeting his wife and daughter.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), Judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 3   The applicant had referred to violations found by the European Court of Human Rights in two other cases concerning actions for damages against the State. The Court pointed out that in those cases it had not ruled in abstracto on the effectiveness of the remedy afforded by domestic legislation but had had regard to the specific circumstances.   Furthermore, Mr Simeonov’s doubts as to the outcome of the proceedings in question did not dispense him from the requirement to use that remedy, which was not obviously futile. The Court also noted that a consistent body of case-law had been developed in recent years by the Bulgarian courts, making it possible to obtain compensation for damage resulting from poor detention conditions.   Lastly, the Court could not speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings, which were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.   Since the applicant had not shown that he had exhausted domestic remedies, in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements, and that an action for damages against the State would have been inappropriate or ineffective in his case or that there had been special circumstances dispensing him from having to use that remedy, his complaint was dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   Article 5 § 3   The applicant had been detained for two years and one month on account of the suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence; he did not dispute that the suspicion had been based on plausible grounds.   Regard being had to Mr Simeonov’s six previous convictions for theft, the other criminal proceedings also pending against him at that time and the prison sentence imposed on him in 2004 in a further set of criminal proceedings, the Bulgarian authorities could not be criticised for having concluded that there was a genuine and serious risk of his committing further offences or absconding. The grounds given for his continued detention had therefore been relevant and sufficient.   The Court noted that there had been no significant shortcomings during the investigation stage and that four of the six postponements of hearings in the first-instance court had not been attributable to the judicial authorities.   The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been conducted with the requisite special diligence and that there had been no violation of Article   5 § 3.   Article 8   The applicant had been prohibited from receiving visits from his wife for two years and ten months; this constituted an interference with his right to respect for his family life.   The interference had not been in accordance with the law since, as the reporting judge of the Regional Court had found in his decision of 31 March 2006, the measure imposed on the applicant had not complied with domestic legislation.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.